Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hazel Bazemore Dogpark topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over Hazel Bazemore dog park escalates after contractor says site can be finished in weeks
Summary
Commissioners debated terminating the Hazel Bazemore dog-park contract after questions about ADA access, project design/oversight and contractor relationships. ABM said equipment and subcontractor commitments total roughly $230,000$408,000 and that it could mobilize to finish in 46 weeks if county-provided drawings are released; the court directed the county attorney to seek documentation and assess exposure.
A dispute over the Hazel Bazemore dog-park project dominated the Nov. 3 County Commissioners Court as commissioners and the contractor exchanged claims about project status, design responsibilities and ADA access.
Commissioner George Hernandez urged the court to reconsider the project's location and compliance, saying some neighbors and stakeholders oppose the site and that the courthouse had not formally budgeted for adjacent ADA-compliant parking. He asked for clarity on three points: how long completion would take if the court authorized continuation, the economic impact if the contract is terminated, and what additional work would be needed for full ADA compliance.
Michael Moriarty, vice president of operations for ABM (the county's general contractor on the job), told the court ABM had procured equipment and paid subcontractors and that much of the material and labor was in place. "All of the equipment material has been purchased," Moriarty said. "We have the equipment. It's we are ready to go mobilize and put it in the ground and deliver a high quality product."
ABM estimated it could complete construction in four to six weeks after receipt of finalized engineering drawings. The company said committed subcontractor payments and equipment purchases represented significant sunk costs and that termination could entail logistics and warranty complications and potential additional costs to move or store purchased items.
Commissioners pressed staff for supporting documentation, including copies of contracts and an itemized list of vendor commitments and invoices. The court directed the county attorney to work with Wheaton Engineering and others to gather documentation, evaluate legal exposure and report back; the matter was taken to executive session for attorney consultation and contract review. The court did not immediately terminate the contract; members asked for further factual backup (project timetable, cost and ADA scope) before deciding whether to proceed, amend or cancel the work.
The exchange highlighted competing responsibilities: project-management decisions made while the work moved forward, engineering roles that were altered during scope changes, and community concerns about location and accessibility. The court instructed legal and procurement staff to provide a complete record and cost estimates for consideration at a subsequent hearing.
